Universal health care in a universe created by God

[Gary Childress]

What if governments taxed the wealthy to pay for social programs instead of the poor?

They already do. In fact, they tax both, and on a progressive scale that means the rich end up paying most of the taxes. In Canada, for example, which reputedly has "universal health care" as well as an extremely high tax rate, the rich pay between 62% and 64% of all taxes. And that's just looking at income tax, not sales tax, carbon tax...etc. And it's still not enough to keep the system up. So the government has either got to tax the rich to death...in which case, just watch how fast they all move their assets offshore and how fast they migrate to the US...or has got to start squeezing the middle class again...which it routinely already does.

The wealthy seem to be getting wealthier and disproportionately wealthier than everyone else, so if they are getting wealthier, doesn't that mean we should be able to raise the taxes of the wealthy more than what they currently are paying? And if we raise just their taxes and no one else's, then doesn't that sound better? It doesn't have to be all their earnings; they can still make more than the poor if that's important to them. However, instead of taxing the poor, don't you think the government should shift taxes more to the rich, who seem to be doing extremely better than everyone else, instead?

[Gary Childress]

Jesus wouldn't protest about taxes either way, that's what the whole render unto Caesar thing is about. On a seperate note he apparently had some stuff to say about wealth accumulation not being spiritually important, but that's not the point. Taxes are an Earthly concern not a spiritual one, and Jesus said to pay them.

True. But my point is that every time someone mentions taxing the wealthy, IC says, "No, that won't work." Apparently, he's only willing to pay for enough social programs that the taxes of the poor can support. If the rich have to be taxed, then all his imaginary roadblocks pop up.

General taxation as it presently stands is sufficient to provide good quality healthcare for the entire populace of any developed nation. There is no need for a special levy on the well to do. You already raise the money. You just don't spend it all that well because for-profit healthcare is extremely inefficient compared to the systems used elsewhere.

All that remains is for the voting populace of those nations to decide what level of normal taxation they are willing to pay for the level of healthcare services they wish to recieve. If they dedicate only the 11 or so percent of GDP that the UK and Canada pay, they will get services such as can be provided if roughly one in ten workers is employed in healthcare. If they prefer to spend the 17 percent of GDP that the USA currently does, then they will get services rendered by almost two in ten workers. Which should be very good I imagine now that half the healthcare workers aren't employed in the tricky field of denying coverage to those in need of medicine.

Well, if current taxation is doing well, then why does IC seem to think that there's a crisis in countries that have universal healthcare? Either IC is full of shit, which is possible, or he is telling the truth, which is also possible.

[FlashDangerpants]

True. But my point is that every time someone mentions taxing the wealthy, IC says, "No, that won't work." Apparently, he's only willing to pay for enough social programs that the taxes of the poor can support. If the rich have to be taxed, then all his imaginary roadblocks pop up.

General taxation as it presently stands is sufficient to provide good quality healthcare for the entire populace of any developed nation. There is no need for a special levy on the well to do. You already raise the money. You just don't spend it all that well because for-profit healthcare is extremely inefficient compared to the systems used elsewhere.

All that remains is for the voting populace of those nations to decide what level of normal taxation they are willing to pay for the level of healthcare services they wish to recieve. If they dedicate only the 11 or so percent of GDP that the UK and Canada pay, they will get services such as can be provided if roughly one in ten workers is employed in healthcare. If they prefer to spend the 17 percent of GDP that the USA currently does, then they will get services rendered by almost two in ten workers. Which should be very good I imagine now that half the healthcare workers aren't employed in the tricky field of denying coverage to those in need of medicine.

Well, if current taxation is doing well, then why does IC seem to think that there's a crisis in countries that have universal healthcare? Either IC is full of shit, which is possible, or he is telling the truth, which is also possible.

You've seen IC argue about lots of stuff, including some truly weird bullshit. By now you have surely noticed that he believes the evidence of his political prejudices and he disbelieves all evidence that doesn't support them. He is invariably full of shit, and there is seldom any hope of him even recognising, let alone telling, the truth.

It is easy to google health spend as percentage of GDP for the OECD nations and see that I am entirely correct. Similar comparisons of health outcomes from that spending are easily discovered and they speak in favour of universal health insurance too. The numbers that demonstrate my case are widely available. Everything IC talks about it somehow impossible to calculate because he is communicating about his feelings and suspicions. You can see this from all his evasive responses to Willy B.

[Immanuel Can]

What if governments taxed the wealthy to pay for social programs instead of the poor?

They already do. In fact, they tax both, and on a progressive scale that means the rich end up paying most of the taxes. In Canada, for example, which reputedly has "universal health care" as well as an extremely high tax rate, the rich pay between 62% and 64% of all taxes. And that's just looking at income tax, not sales tax, carbon tax...etc. And it's still not enough to keep the system up. So the government has either got to tax the rich to death...in which case, just watch how fast they all move their assets offshore and how fast they migrate to the US...or has got to start squeezing the middle class again...which it routinely already does.

The wealthy seem to be getting wealthier and disproportionately wealthier than everyone else, so if they are getting wealthier, doesn't that mean we should be able to raise the taxes of the wealthy more than what they currently are paying? And if we raise just their taxes and no one else's, then doesn't that sound better? It doesn't have to be all their earnings; they can still make more than the poor if that's important to them. However, instead of taxing the poor, don't you think the government should shift taxes more to the rich, who seem to be doing extremely better than everyone else, instead?

What happens when the government taxes the rich? You can see it playing out in both NY and California right now. That's why "eat the rich" will never work. The rich will only put up with so much taxation, and then they'll take their money and their businesses, along with the jobs they create, and leave. Right now, the rich in Cali and NY are opting for Texas, or Florida, or Tennessee...wherever tax conditions are more favourable. But the ultra rich can opt for the Caymans, or Switzerland, or Thailand, or anywhere else that tickles their fancy, because they're not even limited by country.

You would, too, if you were they.

[Will Bouwman]

It's done the same way all good reading is done: in a way sensitive to genre and context, carefully, with attention to the meaning of words, using logic and accurate reasoning to parse implications, and with humility. These "epistemic virtues"...

Well, if you had applied them, you would understand the question is how do you decide what to read? What makes you, Mr Can, pick up a book in the first place?

If you were reading well, you'd have recognized that your question was ambiguous -- that it was capable of more than one interpretation...

You are pushing against an open door-a plank of wood that fills a hole in a wall. I have said repeatedly that any set of data can be interpreted in different ways.

...so I had to select which I thought was the most reasonable for you to ask.

Then epistemic virtues are no guarantee of accurate interpretation.

I can't understand the relevance of your question...

Well, that is a failure of your "logic and accurate reasoning to parse implications".
Meanwhile this:

...things like immigration and the mental health and fentanyl crises, which aren't actually even being addressed right now, and will explode the costs if they ever are.

is still wrong.

[Immanuel Can]

I have said repeatedly that any set of data can be interpreted in different ways.

Ambiguity is not "data."

is still wrong.

You're being very childish. Repetition is not an argument.

[phyllo]

Data is ambiguity.

[Will Bouwman]

I have said repeatedly that any set of data can be interpreted in different ways.

Ambiguity is not "data."

That saves me some bother. You have said something so stupid as to take the piss out of yourself. Still, if you could show there is any set of data that cannot be interpreted in different ways, I will give you a bucket to sit on, call it a throne and prostrate myself before you in awe and reverence.

is still wrong.

You're being very childish. Repetition is not an argument.

And again. You are the gift that keeps on giving.

[Will Bouwman]

Data is ambiguity.

Data is data, it is any interpretation that is ambiguous. The only philosophically unquestionable fact is that there is data.

[Immanuel Can]

I have said repeatedly that any set of data can be interpreted in different ways.

Ambiguity is not "data."

Still, if you could show there is any set of data that cannot be interpreted in different ways,...

Not necessary. It was your wording, not any data, that was ambiguous. I have no obligation to prove a point I was not making.

[Will Bouwman]

Still, if you could show there is any set of data that cannot be interpreted in different ways,...

Not necessary. It was your wording, not any data, that was ambiguous.

Again you are saving me some bother by making my point for me.

I have no obligation to prove a point I was not making.

True; so you accept that 'epistemic virtue' is bollocks.

[Immanuel Can]

Still, if you could show there is any set of data that cannot be interpreted in different ways,...

Not necessary. It was your wording, not any data, that was ambiguous.

Again you are saving me some bother by making my point for me.

I have no obligation to prove a point I was not making.

True; so you accept that 'epistemic virtue' is bollocks.

I think you've stopped paying attention. I think I'll give you a break to figure things out.

[Will Bouwman]

I think I'll give you a break to figure things out.

Okie dokie. Get back to me when you have done so.

[Immanuel Can]

I think I'll give you a break to figure things out.

Okie dokie. Get back to me when you have done so.

Will do.